DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 09/16/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending and are examined below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection as detailed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 6604044 B1 (“Kirk”).
Regarding claim 16, Kirk teaches deriving an intention of a vehicle, via a processor executing an algorithm specially programmed (see at least Col. 7 lines 1-16)
generating a baseline lateral profile for a baseline trajectory generating a baseline vertical profile for the baseline trajectory (see at least Col. 1 lines 29-37);
forming a baseline trajectory by merging the baseline vertical profile with the baseline lateral profile (see at least Col. 1 lines 56-67); and
using at least one of: a performance element or a configuration element from the baseline trajectory for deriving the aircraft intent (see at least Col. 2 lines 32-40); and
receiving and using, the aircraft intent for deconflicting the aircraft intent for the vehicle from other derived aircraft intent of other vehicles (see at least Col. 5 lines 52-64).
Regarding claim 17, Kirk teaches the aircraft intent comprising traversing a series of turn points in a desired amount of time and a desired distance (see at least Col. 2 line 64 – Col. 3 line 10); and
generating the baseline lateral profile via using instantaneous changes in a course of the vehicle at each turn point in the series of turn points (see at least Col. 2 lines 32-40).
Regarding claim 18, Kirk teaches respectively retrieving, at each turn point along the baseline trajectory, at least one of: the performance element or the configuration element of the vehicle; using at least one of: the performance element or the configuration element, respectively, computing a turn radius at each turn point (see at least Col. 2 line 64 – Col. 3 line 10); and
replacing, using the turn radius, the baseline lateral profile with an adjusted lateral profile (see at least Col. 2 lines 32-40).
Regarding claim 19, Kirk teaches generating, using the adjusted lateral profile, an adapted vertical profile (see at least Col. 3 lines 46-65); and
deriving the aircraft intent by merging the adjusted lateral profile with the adapted vertical profile (see at least Col. 3 lines 55-65).
Regarding claim 20, Kirk teaches applying airspace constraints onto the baseline lateral profile, and further comprising, subsequent to forming the baseline trajectory, adapting the vertical profile and therefrom deriving the aircraft intent (see at least Col. 5 lines 53-64).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6604044 B1 (“Kirk”) in view of US 20220122466 A1 (“Feyereisen”).
Regarding Claim 1, Kirk discloses a processor executing an algorithm specially programmed (see at least Col. 7 lines 19-32);
generating a baseline lateral profile for a baseline trajectory (see at least Col. 1 lines 29-37);
using at least one of: a performance element, or a configuration element, from the baseline trajectory for guiding the vehicle subsequently, generating a baseline vertical profile for the baseline trajectory; subsequently, forming a baseline trajectory by coupling the baseline vertical profile with the baseline lateral profile; and (see at least Col. 2 lines 1-14).
Kirk is not explicit on subsequently, generating a baseline vertical profile for the baseline trajectory; subsequently, forming a baseline trajectory by coupling the baseline vertical profile with the baseline lateral profile, however,
Feyereisen discloses subsequently, generating a baseline vertical profile for the baseline trajectory; subsequently, forming a baseline trajectory by coupling the baseline vertical profile with the baseline lateral profile (see at least [0030]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the system disclosed by Kirk with the vehicle systems, and more particularly, embodiments of the subject matter relate to aircraft systems capable of presenting multiple potential destinations on a vertical profile display disclosed by Feyereisen because it is desirable to reduce the mental workload of the pilot or other aircraft operator and reduce the time required to identify a diversion destination location while providing improved situational awareness in a complex situation (Feyereisen, [0004]).
Regarding claim 2, Kirk discloses the vehicle traversing a series of turn points within a desired time and within a desired distance; and generating the baseline lateral profile via using instantaneous changes in a course of the vehicle at each turn point in the series of turn points (see at least Col. 2 lines 32-40).
Regarding claim 3, Kirk discloses respectively retrieving, at each turn point along the baseline trajectory, at least one of: the performance element or the configuration element of the vehicle (see at least Col. 2 line 64 – Col. 3 line 10);
using at least one of: performance element or the configuration element, respectively, computing a turn radius at each turn point; and replacing, using the turn radius, the baseline lateral profile with an adjusted lateral profile (see at least Col. 3 lines 20-40).
Regarding claim 4, Kirk discloses generating, using the adjusted lateral profile, an adapted vertical profile (see at least Col. 3 lines 46-65); and
forming a guided trajectory by merging the adjusted lateral profile with the adapted vertical profile (see at least Col. 3 lines 56-65).
Regarding claim 5, Kirk discloses generating the vertical profile for the baseline trajectory comprises applying airspace constraints onto the baseline lateral profile (see at least Col. 5 lines 52-64).
Regarding claim 6, Kirk discloses :subsequent to forming the baseline trajectory, adapting the vertical profile and therefrom deriving a guided trajectory (see at least Col. 3 lines 46-65).
Regarding claim 7, Kirk discloses the performance element is a true airspeed (see at least Col. 7 lines 1-16).
Regarding claim 8, Kirk discloses the vehicle is an aerospace vehicle (see at least Abstract).
Regarding claim 9, Kirk discloses a processor executing an algorithm specially programmed for deriving a trajectory for the vehicle meeting the constraints and the objectives (see at least Col. 7 lines 19-32) ,
generating a baseline lateral profile for a baseline trajectory (see at least Col. 1 lines 29-37);
using at least one of: a performance element or a configuration element from the baseline trajectory for deriving a predicted trajectory for the vehicle meeting the constraints and the objectives (see at least Col. 2 lines 1-14);
sending the predicted trajectory to a guidance unit for the vehicle; and guiding a trajectory of the vehicle meeting the constraints and the objectives (see at least Col. 2 lines 32-40).
Kirk is not explicit on subsequently, generating a vertical profile for the baseline trajectory; subsequently, forming a baseline trajectory by merging the vertical profile with the baseline lateral profile, however
Feyereisen discloses subsequently, generating a vertical profile for the baseline trajectory; subsequently, forming a baseline trajectory by merging the vertical profile with the baseline lateral profile (see at least [0030]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the system disclosed by Kirk with the vehicle systems, and more particularly, embodiments of the subject matter relate to aircraft systems capable of presenting multiple potential destinations on a vertical profile display disclosed by Feyereisen because it is desirable to reduce the mental workload of the pilot or other aircraft operator and reduce the time required to identify a diversion destination location while providing improved situational awareness in a complex situation (Feyereisen, [0004]).
Regarding claim 10, Kirk discloses the constraints and the objectives comprising a series of turn points (see at least Col. 2 line 64 – Col. 3 line 10); and.
generating the baseline lateral profile via using instantaneous changes in a course of the vehicle at each turn point in the series of turn points traversing the series of turn points within a desired time and within a desired distance (see at least Col. 2 lines 32-40).
Regarding claim 11, Kirk discloses respectively retrieving, at each turn point along the baseline trajectory, at least one of: the performance element or the configuration element of the vehicle (see at least Col. 2 line 64 – Col. 3 line 10); and
using at least one of: the performance element or the configuration element, respectively, computing a turn radius at each turn point (see at least Col. 3 lines 10-20); and
replacing, using the turn radius, the baseline lateral profile with an adjusted lateral profile (see at least Col. 3 lines 20-40).
Regarding claim 12, Kirk discloses generating, using the adjusted lateral profile, an adapted vertical profile (see at least Col. 3 lines 46-65); and
forming the trajectory by merging the adjusted lateral profile with the adapted vertical profile (see at least Col. 3 lines 55-65).
Regarding claim 13, Kirk discloses the vehicle is an aerospace vehicle (see at least Abstract).
Regarding claim 14, Kirk discloses generating the vertical profile for the baseline trajectory comprises applying airspace constraints onto the baseline lateral profile (see at least Col. 5 lines 52-64).
Regarding claim 15, Kirk discloses subsequent to forming the baseline trajectory, adapting the vertical profile and therefrom guiding the vehicle (see at least Col. 5 line 65 – Col. 6 line 14).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATHEW FRANKLIN GORDON whose telephone number is (408)918-7612. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00 - 5:00 PST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATHEW FRANKLIN GORDON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights